CPSIA – ICPHSO Update – Q&A with CPSC

Q&A’s from this afternoon’s session. Gib Mullan responding unless otherwise noted.

A taste of things to come:

1. The biggest impact of the Public Database is how quickly you will have to reply. Hmmm, where have we heard this before??? Hope you are never on vacation. . . .
2. On confidentiality in the Public Database, it is going to be “hard to deal with”. Info from consumers won’t be confidential. Info from businesses will either be confidential or not, perhaps at the company’s pleasure, but it will be hard to act on info businesses provide WITHOUT making it public. RW: Don’t forget to make comments,guys. Your silence will be taken as your approval, trust me.
3. The plan for the DB is to let companies have “every bit of the time” specified in the statute “AND NOTHING MORE”. There will be “minimal CPSC review”. Aha, just like Tenenbaum said, time to get prepared. . . for the first Tuesday in November.
4. One questioner noted that the recalls on cribs has so rattled consumers that it has stimulated the return of co-sleeping arrangements, known to be one of the most dangerous baby scenarios. Hmmm. The CPSC will be doing education to counteract this development. RW: It is inconceivable that their publicity will match the media frenzy over crib recalls. It’s probably safest just to stop having kids.
5. Will there be a mandatory standard for window coverings – because there is (said to be) one death a month. The CPSC says that they are working on it. For you at home, it’s probably safer to just take down all window coverings and let Mrs. Kravitz have a big day.
6. Somebody called for new regulations on the “end of life”, just like in Japan. OMG . . . . Hey, they mean the end of your product’s life! What were you thinking? The CPSC is watching how this system works but has no present plans to expand its current regulatory scheme.
7. When will a promotional product become a “Children’s Product”? Does it become a Children’s Product if screened with the wrong thing? Cheri Falvey responded that you can’t read the WIMA letter (the pen decision) to address this question. It was a “result-oriented” opinion from a two-person Commission. The new rule on Children’s Products, to be voted on by five Commissioners, will sort this out. Might incorporate the pen decision and broaden it, or it might not. So there you go, might be okay, might not, you should wait and see. [RW: I hate the pen decision because it attempts to solve a compliance issue on a technicality with absolutely no regard for safety. Is a pen safe? The decision cannot be reconciled against that question because it only matters what was intended by the manufacturer. Safety is irrelevant when considering compliance . . . ?]
8. Eric Stone noted that changes in the definition of “Children’s Products” may have consequences for manufacturers and asked if the agency has the legal authority to operate prospectively. Falvey declined to give a legal opinion, but noted her personal opinion that the definition could broaden in the new rule. She noted that she has warned about that in the past. Oh, I see, we are to write down her every word, savoring them like pearls, because her oral warnings in any setting are going to be taken as precedent. We were warned. Too bad for those of you who weren’t here to hear her words. Ha Ha Ha Ha! And you can’t use this blog as a citation, either. Remember, my URL doesn’t end in “dot gov”. I am a liar.
9. When the law goes into effect on cribs, Falvey told us this AM that the standards will be RETROACTIVE. A member of the juvenile products industry referred to this news as a “bomb”. He said there could be 20 or 30 million cribs that don’t comply and would be instantly illegal. Gib says the new rule would be retroactive only for cribs in “public settings” like hotels, motels, day care centers. He says that the Commission has the authority to go even further. Oooh, could be a great chance for the government to come into your home – nice! I really like the concept of this rule – it’s really simple, see, it will be retroactive for some people and prospective for others. Apparently, the CPSC and Congress still haven’t figured out that the U.S. economy is rather complex. I see years of fun ahead for the regulators.
10. Learning Curve asked if all document attachments on the Public Database would be made public. Gib said yes. LCI then asked about consumer-obtained test reports and whether they would also be made public without scrutiny. Gib said he hadn’t thought of that one. I can think of a few plaintiff’s lawyers who would be happy to run a real life seminar about this in the future . . . . This Q illustrates the incredible disarray that awaits us all because of this insanely self-destructive provision fobbed off on us by the consumer groups.
11. Gib: not everything in the database will be public. Some area will be explicitly confidential. Some 15(b) disclosures will not appear in the DB.
12. No decision on whether media reports will be included in the DB. I find this hard to be envision – I trust eventually the consumer groups will force all the trash into the DB to help with all their searches. Oh how I look forward to the new era of Sudden Business Death.
13. Will the agency will reconcile multiple reports of the same incident? One of Cheri Falvey’s associates said they would address it in the rule. The rule is now over 25 pages long. Trust me, it won’t be that short when released.

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Update – Q&A with CPSC

CPSIA – Recommended Non-Legislative Changes

As promised, I wanted to provide my list of non-legislative changes to accompany my list of CPSIA changes. I have repeatedly called for effective process and resource allocation to bring about results. I do not share the view that draconian penalties and super-low standards are the answer – something else, something more “human” is needed to get better outcomes. So I conclude that changes to the law alone won’t work. The agency needs to rethink its priorities and its way of interacting with the market to reduce injuries in the long term.

As a preface, it’s important to note the following:

a. My suggestions for legislative and non-legislative changes will have NO material negative impact on safety. It is my fervent hope and intention that these changes will improve results for the agency.

b. It is critical that the agency be well-functioning after amendment of the law. In my legislative changes, I have placed a priority on cleaning up purposeless complexity and tasks that are not critical to the mission of supervising safety. It is essential the CPSC have a set of ordered priorities – because if everything is important, nothing is important. In my non-legislative changes, I propose prioritized resource allocations to improve focus on real drivers of behavior.

c. I believe the agency must reestablish a basic sense of what is safe and what is not safe. Judging from recent decisions of the Commission and recent recalls, I think the line between “safe” and “unsafe” has become blurred. Being careful about safety does NOT imply a fear of “everything”. I have tailored my legislative recommendations to focus in on REAL safety risks – only. In my non-legislative recommendations, I have focused on resource allocation, outreach/education and better communication with the regulated community, striving for constructive dialogue rather than behind-the-curve reactivity.

My list of non-legislative changes:

• Liaison office to manage Q&A with regulated companies. “No name” inquiries should be permitted. This office should be staffed adequately to ensure timely replies.
• Amnesty program – if a regulated entity turns itself in before it is notified that it is being investigated, the regulated party may NOT be penalized.
• Industry Outreach/Education – as a TOP priority, the CPSC must create an educational outreach program to sensitize industry to safety issues and to educate regulated companies on their legal obligations and on good safety practices. This office should operate independently of enforcement staff or activities. On-site training should be offered for free.
• The CPSC website should be reworked to meet best standards for access to information. The current website is quirky and difficult to navigate.
• The agency should reexamine its allocation of resources according to severity of threat, and then reorganize its assets in line with threat priorities. Threat level teams should be separately staffed and tasked, with timeliness of processing a top priority. If resources are allocated properly, the concept of a “queue” can be abandoned in favor of objective expectations on how threats are processed by the agency. The teams should be resourced independently, as though they were separate agencies (e.g., the “high threat” team would have different lab resources than the “medium threat” team).
• Industry self-regulation should again become the principal strategy of the agency to manage markets.

I recommend that all of my legislative and non-legislative changes be implemented to reduce the administrative burden of regulating the affected markets and to improve the effectiveness of the agency’s activities. The overly broad and unrealistic demands of the CPSIA made inevitable the observed diminishing impact of the CPSC. By eliminating many unnecessary standards, bureaucracy and supervisory activities (totally eliminating vast amount of work for both agency and regulated community), focus may be restored to the task of keeping kids safe. This will result in GREATER safety, certainly not increased injuries.

The task of properly allocating resources within the agency to bring about good results in the marketplace is far more important than having draconian rules on the books. With the scheme I recommend above, the CPSC would be in the optimal position to focus on real threats and to buttress safety against evolving threats. A revitalized agency focusing on high impact activities and structured to respond quickly and insightfully against emerging threats will make the CPSC a model agency within the Federal government.

It can be done . . . with some courage, some vision and a sense of conviction. The time is NOW.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Recommended Non-Legislative Changes

CPSIA – CPSC Isn’t Interested in These Ways to Poison Children

In a clarification of the rules implementing the CPSIA, the CPSC today documented which ways to poison children with lead are legally permissible.

First, it is okay to incorporate as much lead as you want in your product, provided that it is not “intended primarily” for children: “The Commission is often asked what products must comply with the lead content limit, i.e., what is a ‘children’s product’ under the law. The answer is anything that is designed or intended primarily for a child 12 years of age or younger. ‘Primarily’ is the key word used in the law. Not everything a child uses or touches must meet the lead content limit, only those things designed or intended primarily for a child 12 years old or younger.” So, this means that the lead limits only apply to products intended “primarily” for children, and does NOT apply to products that children might use but aren’t aimed at the children’s market. [This is the dilemma in the brass bushings case.] Regulation of children’s products exists in its own little world, and hazards that exist within that market don’t exist outside it – is that it?

The CPSC will make a determination about this intent based on what you say or what you and others think about your product: “We consider how the product is marketed as well as what the manufacturer has said about the product (if reasonable) and whether consumers commonly recognize the product is being intended for a child 12 or younger.” Given that the CPSC is supposed to protect consumers from untoward product hazards (hence the agency’s name), I think it is fair to conclude that the CPSC has decided use of lead is only dangerous if the leaded product is intended for children. Intent apparently affects the physiological impact of lead. Interestingly, this is also the case with phthalates. Perhaps these materials were banned from children’s products because they can be activated by mind control, which is clearly dangerous.

I find the CPSC’s position compelling, as it suggests that perhaps the rules for small business under the CPSIA should be different. Many people have suggested to me that we should demand different rules for small business. After all, small businesses are severely and unfairly penalized under the new law – perhaps small business should get a pass? I have always said “no” on the grounds that parents are unlikely to forgive injury based on who caused it. Injuries are bad, whether caused by a big business product or a small business product. Therefore, it seems imperative to me that one (rational) set of rules needs to apply to everyone.

If, however, lead is okay if delivered by pen (“. . . most consumers would not consider an ordinary ball point pen as being intended primarily for use by a child 12 years of age or younger”) but not by way of an electrical cable in a potato clock, then perhaps we can rethink the other rules by analogy. Thus, this new CPSC position paper suggests that it might also be okay for certain kinds of businesses to poison kids. Pen companies, for instance, are apparently unrestricted – your Bic can be made of pure lead, that’s fine with the CPSC. By this same pretzel logic, I think it is reasonable to hold that small businesses are exempt from the law. Why not?!

In the same document, the CPSC also reiterated their excellent advice on materials that can be included in children’s products without testing for lead. They chose to remind us that our old friends palladium, rhodium, osmium, iridium and ruthenium are okey-dokey in children’s products. The fact that these materials are well-known to be poisonous, explosive and made from spent nuclear fuel rods did not apparently deter the CPSC. I know I am not a “safety professional” but I would think that at least some of these materials are hazardous substances under the FHSA, presumably making them poor candidates for exemption from the CPSIA. Given that these materials continue to appear on the CPSC’s exempt list suggests that I must not fully appreciate their safety benefits . . . .

Of course, the CPSC’s permission to use these materials on the grounds that they are lead-free seems remarkably out of touch with reality. Each of these materials, like other permitted materials like surgical steel, certain stainless steels, gold, silver, platinum and titanium, as well as diamonds, rubies, sapphires, emeralds and natural or cultured pearls, is absurdly expensive and in many cases, quite rare. It may sound good to say that the market is full of available alternatives, but if they are ridiculously expensive or hard to obtain, how is that any different than giving us permission to use pixie dust or krytonite? As a practical matter, not at all.

Someday, I wish the CPSC would issue practical advice that made sense to me. Once upon a time, I actually thought our nation’s safety laws were rational, understandable and predictable. Nowadays, they are riddled with traps for the unwary and require teams of people to interpret and administer them. The implementing rules are detached from any semblance of the reality of the marketplace: “The products on this list are all things the Commission has determined do not contain lead over 100 ppm, which is within the allowable 300 ppm limit. Thus, they will comply with the law (and must always comply) and, therefore, do not need testing and certification. They do not need to be tested by a third party laboratory to prove they are, in fact, made of something on the list, and they do not need to be tested to prove that they meet the lead content limits . . . . Some retailers may want manufacturers and importers to test and certify their products, but those tests and certificates are not required by the Commission for the materials or products on the list.” That makes it fine, I guess – the CPSC has had nothing to do with this “mysterious” phenomena.

As long as the CPSC thinks it is okay to wear blinders while doing its job, we will continue to get rules describing the legal and illegal ways to poison children and other safety conundrums. I am tired of it, what about you?

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSC Isn’t Interested in These Ways to Poison Children

CPSIA – Crain’s Says We’re About to Get Sued

In this week’s Crain’s Chicago Business, the news periodical speculate on which mass tort action could succeed asbestos as the next gravy train for plaintiff’s attorneys. And guess who makes a guest appearance??? Asbestos and the legal black hole By: Steven R. Strahler September 28, 2009 Asbestos has lived up to its Greek origin — “inextinguishable” — on legal and medical landscapes alike: Mass tort actions involving asbestos have bankrupted more than 60 makers and users of the once-widespread insulating material, starting with Johns-Manville Corp. in 1982 and claiming Chicago’s USG Corp. in 2001. Odds are, corporate defendants won’t see another mass tort topic like it: more than 700,000 claims pending against 8,000-plus defendants and estimated costs exceeding $250 billion. Because asbestos-related symptoms can take 30 years or more to manifest, the litigation is expected to last until mid-century. . . . . “No, there is no asbestos-like gravy train pulling up in front of the American Bar Assn.,” says Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute. Still, he says, “there are great unknowns, like climate change and latent manifestation of occupational disease.” Among the most likely post-asbestos targets for plaintiffs’ attorneys: . . . . Product liability The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires independent testing of children’s products, including cribs and metal jewelry, empowers state attorneys general to file federal actions and increases penalties, all of which will boost opportunities for mass-tort suits.

See the rest here:
CPSIA – Crain’s Says We’re About to Get Sued

CPSIA – Too Much of a Good Thing? Nah!

The CPSC’s notorious Resale Roundup was greeted with more “acclaim” by Fox News this week. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Be sure to check out the article (“New Government Policy Imposes Strict Standards on Garage Sales Nationwide”), the slideshow (“Ridiculous Recalls?”) and the video . Each is worth your time. For those who are not familiar with this novel new program, the CPSC is fanning out to save you from “evil” resellers who might be foisting off recalled items on you. This includes spying on local garage sales, visiting your local resale shop and poking around on eBay and Craigslist.com. The CPSC has apparently given up on education and individual responsibility as a way to protect against harm – instead, they are redoubling their effort to be the Cop On The Beat, like it or not. In this case, they have chosen to make up a fake crisis, the resale of recalled items, to justify becoming an active protector of the public safety. To get the flavor of this article and the basic problem, here are a few quotes: 1. “The [strict CPSIA] standards were originally interpreted to apply only to new products, but now the CPSC says they apply to used items as well. ‘Those who resell recalled children’s products are not only breaking the law, they are putting children’s lives at risk,’ said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. ‘Resale stores should make safety their business and check for recalled products and hazards to children.’” RW – Note that Ms. Tenenbaum justifies this massive incursion into people’s lives by the claim that recalled items “[put] children’s lives at risk”. While I concede SOME recalled items might in fact endanger children’s lives, please check out the slideshow for perspective on the mortal danger posed by many recalled items. Hmmm. A little hyperbole, perhaps? There are ways to deal with the limited problem of certain dangerous items circulating without resorting to the claim that there’s a Five Alarm Fire burning. 2. “CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson says the fines are intended for large companies with serious infractions. ‘CPSC is an agency that has used its penalty powers over its 30-year history against companies,’ Wolfson told FOXNews.com. ‘CPSC is not seeking to pursue penalties against individuals hosting a garage sale or yard sale, we are encouraging them to take the right steps to not resell recalled products.’ But FOX News Legal Analyst Bob Massi says the law makes no distinction for families and small resellers. . . . Don Mays, senior director of product safety planning at the publisher of Consumer Reports, says the hefty penalties are necessary to have an impact. ‘The former civil penalty limit of $1.87 million was too small to be an effective deterrent to large companies who flagrantly violated the law,’ Mays told FOXNews.com. ‘Mattel and its subsidiary Fisher-Price, for example, recently paid a $2.3 million penalty for importing about 2 million toys that violated the CPSC 30-year-old lead paint ban — that amounts to just over one dollar per toy.’” RW – CPSC says they won’t hit you with big penalties, but the law permits it. The Fox video shows that people are afraid. It’s hard to trust a regulatory agency out looking for “bad guys” in your garage with a BIG stick and no checks, balances or controls on how it will use it. Yes, they claim to be all sweetness and light – but what happens if they change their minds? The consumer groups are all for hefty fines, as Mr. Mays confirms, and nowadays, they seem to be passing notes to Congress and to the CPSC. So, is it any surprise that many people are quite alarmed? Side note: Don’t worry, the CPSC says they won’t be coming into your home (yet): “Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the agency, said it wouldn’t be dispatching bureaucratic storm troopers into private homes to see whether people were selling recalled products from their garages, yards or churches. ‘We’re not looking to come across as being heavy-handed,’ he said. ‘We want to make sure that everybody knows what the rules of engagement are to help spur greater compliance, so that enforcement becomes less of an issue. But we’re still going to enforce.’” Aha. Personally, I feel SO much better now. 3. “‘It is scary to think that there could be such hefty fines imposed on unsuspecting households,’ another garage sale organizer, Patti Lombardi, told FOXNews.com. ‘I think I speak for many people when I say that the government spends too much time interfering in the individual citizen’s personal life and this is almost bordering on the ridiculous … what if it opens up a Pandora’s box of litigation brought by the purchasers of items at garage sales?’” RW – Ms. Lombardi hits the nail on the head for the business community. We all KNOW that litigation will follow in the wake of this law. There is a reason why the trial bar-supported consumer groups are all so gung-ho on this law. Everything’s illegal now (check out your reporting requirements under Section 15(b) of the CPSIA – you have a generous 24 hours to report ANY violation of ANY term of ANY law, regulation or rule enforced by the CPSC (they don’t even publish a list, btw) – super!). Litigation by public attorney generals, State attorney generals and the Feds is expected by everyone. Given that it is inevitable that everyone will have violated something, and with the imputed knowledge standard of the CPSIA, probably deemed to have done so “intentionally”, the choice of when and who to sue will favor the government rather substantially. The law was written to terrorize – and mission accomplished, it has. 4. “‘If I’ve got a wirebound notebook, the lead content in that wire binding is now under scrutiny, even though the chance of ingesting lead in any amount from something like that is virtually non-existent, [TimetoPlayMag.com content director Chris Byrne] said. ‘It’s a level of political grandstanding to say ‘we’re taking care of everything,’ but the science clearly demonstrates that the transference is not really possible — I mean, a child who eats the wire binding from a notebook is going to have significantly worse health problems than lead.’” Perhaps you get the idea. I wonder if the CPSC and Congress will EVER get the idea.

More:
CPSIA – Too Much of a Good Thing? Nah!

CPSIA – My Letter to Inez Tenenbaum (9-17-09)

September 17, 2009 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS The Honorable Inez Tenenbaum Chairman U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 4330 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Re: Safety of Rhinestones and Crystals Dear Chairman Tenenbaum: I am writing on behalf of the Alliance for Children’s Product Safety, an organization comprised of small businesses in many industries impacted by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). Of particular concern to Alliance members is the “unintended consequences” of the CPSIA, namely that many safe products will be explicitly or effectively forced from the market despite sterling safety records, and that many viable and law-abiding businesses will be economically crippled (or worse) by new testing, labeling and other obligations and liabilities under the new law. We are aware of your recent testimony at a CPSIA oversight hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection on September 10, 2009. In your testimony, you expressed concern that swallowing “50 beads” (referring to rhinestones, glass beads or crystals) might lead to measurable change in blood lead levels and would hence be considered “unsafe.” You also indicated that your statement of July 17, 2009 explaining your vote to deny the Section 101(b) exclusion request of the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association and other organizations for such beads was “poorly worded,” and the level of lead in such beads was in fact a cause for concern. You mentioned, in particular, beads with lead levels of 23,000 ppm. We are puzzled by this testimony and kindly request clarification. Notably, you wrote in your statement of July 17 that “Commission staff recognized that most crystal and glass beads do not appear to pose a serious health risk to children.” You also stated clearly that risk assessment by the Commission “appears to be in direct conflict with the statutory language [of the CPSIA]” and therefore the agency is foreclosed from considering factors such as “bioavailability of lead, accessibility of the lead to children, foreseeable use and abuse, foreseeable duration of exposure, marketing and life cycle of the product” in any exemption proceeding. We are therefore confused by your testimony that your vote against the exclusion request was actually motivated by a safety concern (risk assessment). The clarity and consistency of CPSC administration of the CPSIA is a serious issue for businesses attempting to comply with the new law. It is well-known that confusion among the regulated industries has caused market chaos and considerable business losses. The rhinestones decision, followed by your recent Congressional testimony, creates serious new issues that will further confuse those trying to comply with the law. We request that the Commission provide clarification on your July 17 contention that exemption requests will be made without regard to risk assessment. If risk assessment is not permitted by the CPSIA in such proceedings (as has been consistently stated by you as well as by Commissioners Nord and Moore), we request that the Commission explain the relevance of the safety considerations of swallowing 50 rhinestones on the rhinestones exemption request decision. If your testimony before Congress indicates that risk assessment is now permitted in CPSIA exemption proceedings, please explain the legal basis for this change in statutory interpretation. We believe that the terms of the CPSIA require that the CPSC deny the exclusion request for rhinestones based solely on the lead levels in the stones; however, we do not believe rhinestones, crystals or glass beads present any health issue for children. Rhinestones are well-known to be safe. These stones are a classic “innocent victim” of CPSIA, like so many other safe product classes similarly affected. We request the information that you used to support your testimony that swallowing 50 beads present a health risk to children. In particular, we believe this conclusion is dependent on two theses: a. That swallowing 50 beads is a “foreseeable use and abuse”. b. That swallowing 50 beads will cause a measurable change in blood lead levels (one micro-gram per deciliter of blood). Likelihood of Swallowing 50 Beads. Based on a review of medical literature, the risk of swallowing 50 beads is minimal for “normal” children. For instance, in “Foreign-Body Ingestion in Children: Experience With 1,265 Cases”, Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Vol. 10, No. 10 (October, 1999), pp. 1472-1476, the authors document 552 cases of proven foreign body ingestion but do not indicate any record of jewels being ingested. Although NEISS data (this author reviewed data from 2005) shows that jewelry is known to be ingested by children, many cases in the database are not proven (merely suspected) or involve products not relevant to this issue, and in the vast majority of cases, the swallowing are inadvertent or accidental. The accidental nature of ingestion of jewelry is quite relevant here, as the accidental ingestion of four bracelets or 20 rings in incontestably improbable. In addition, such a serious incident would take a great deal of time and an intent to create mischief, none of which is considered a “foreseeable use and abuse” of a children’s product. It is notable that rhinestones are not meant to be ingested, have no flavor or smell and are, in fact, rocks. Rocks are not food and are unlikely to be ingested by children with normal mental health or normal intelligence. On February 2, 2009, the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association and related organizations submitted a request for exclusion of these stones from the lead limits of the CPSIA under Section 101(b) (the “February 2 Letter”). In that letter, they provided industry data on the use of decorative stones in jewelry. Notably, the February 2 letter indicates that jewelry intended for children six years or younger contains between 4-15 stones. Thus, a child of six years of age or younger would have to consume 4-13 pieces of his/her jewelry to swallow 50 beads. This appears to be a highly unusual event. We therefore request that CPSC provide data supporting your contention that swallowing 50 beads is a “foreseeable use or abuse” of children’s products containing rhinestones, crystals or glass beads.. Likelihood of Blood Lead Level Changes. In their February 2 letter, the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association and related organizations provided a technical study entitled “Evaluation of Lead in Crystal Beads and Rhinestones” prepared by the respected consulting company, Exponent. In its study, Exponent calculates the lead leaching rate of rhinestones (with lead levels in excess of 600 ppm) in saline (mouthing, 0.15 micro-grams per gram of stones) and acid extraction (ingestion, 0.52 micro-grams per gram of stones). Likewise, it notes that one gram of the most common size of such stones (10PP) equal 333 stones. [Obviously, larger stones require fewer stones to reach one gram in mass, but the analytical results are similar.] Studies of the daily intake of lead for children demonstrate that lead is present throughout the food system and is present in our air and water as well. As a consequence, children will inevitably consume lead throughout the day by simply breathing, eating and drinking water. [It is well-accepted that the largest source for childhood lead is house paint, followed by dirt and air.] A recent study of dietary intake of lead by children in India indicates that tolerable daily intake of lead far exceeds 10 micro-grams per day (see “Dietary and Inhalation Intake of Lead and Estimation of Blood Lead Levels in Adults and Children in Kanpur, India”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 1573-1588, December 2005 ). Similarly, the Exponent study submitted on February 2 indicates that the FDA has determined that six micro-grams of lead per day is required to produce a one micro-gram of lead per deciliter change in blood lead levels in children six years old or younger. Thus, to produce such a change in blood lead levels from jewels would require sustained daily ingestion of 12 grams of stones (roughly 4,000 stones or hundreds of pieces of jewelry) or mouthing of 42 grams of stones (roughly 14,000 stones or more than 1,000 pieces of jewelry). Clearly, this is unlikely to occur, particularly accidentally. It goes without saying that ingestion of 50 beads is far more likely to result in physical injury because of intestinal blockage or similar maladies than from lead poisoning. We do not believe any NEISS cases involving the accidental ingestion of jewels were considered a lead poisoning risk by the attending physicians. We kindly request that the CPSC provide data on any incident in the NEISS database documenting that the attending physician considered lead poisoning a risk from the ingestion of jewels. We also kindly request that the CPSC provide back-up data and analysis to support your assertion that the CPSC “could not determine” whether swallowing 50 beads will cause a measurable change in blood lead levels. The Need for Flexibility. Finally, we note that in last week’s hearings, Rep. George Radanovich asked you whether you needed “flexibility so [you] can exempt safe products”. You replied that it was ‘premature” for you to answer that question. We are concerned by your unwillingness to answer this question definitively and kindly request an explanation as to why it is “premature” to ask for flexibility to exempt safe products from the lead limits of the CPSIA. Given that the agency has a limited budget, please explain how the Commission will deploy its resources to regulate and supervise safe products, when the need to deal with unsafe products or safety risks is so overwhelmingly large. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Richard Woldenberg Chairman Alliance for Children’s Product Safety cc: Commissioner Robert Adler Commissioner Thomas Moore Commissioner Nancy Nord Commissioner Anne Northrup

Read this article:
CPSIA – My Letter to Inez Tenenbaum (9-17-09)

CPSIA – Wanted, a Demonstration of CHARACTER

I hear from readers of this Blog practically every day. It is obvious that I am not alone in my strong opposition to the CPSIA

See the original post here:
CPSIA – Wanted, a Demonstration of CHARACTER

CPSIA – Avery-Dennison Volunteers to Collect a CPSIA Tax

When I was the only representative of an operating company to testify before the CPSC Tracking Labels panel on May 12, I warned that the Section 103 requirements would turn Learning Resources into a “tracking labels company”, as opposed to our current role as a developer and marketer of educational materials. I predicted that we would need a full-time label staff, considerable extra expense on labeling and testing and a brand new tracking labels software application

See the original post:
CPSIA – Avery-Dennison Volunteers to Collect a CPSIA Tax

« Previous Page